The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. WJBscribe (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Important events in NHGRI history → List of events in NHGRI history  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Someone searching for this is looking for a list of events in NHGRI history, which they will find. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (this reply applies to all the nominations the nominator has left the above comment on) I disagree. "Important" in this case clearly means "selected" or what we would usually term "notable" - i.e. not an indiscriminate list. None of the targets are indiscriminate, and highlight only important (for varying definitions) entries. If someone does disagree with the selection of "important" there is nothing we can help them with, but this does not justify forcing everyone else to navigate via unpredicatable search results. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Important viruses → Viral disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig The target includes a "Comparison table of clinically important virus families and species" which is a suitable target for this redirect, however "virus" is ambiguous between biological viruses and computer viruses. Comparison of computer viruses seems to be a suitable target for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. Are we talking about viral diseases or computer viruses? Is "important" a particular classification like "endangered" or "threatened" ? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Given the problems with this redirect, I agree that we should just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Important Disasters Of 2009-2010 → List of natural disasters by death toll  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "important" is subjective. Also, the scope of the target page includes more than just "Disasters Of 2009-2010". Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this was Important disasters of 2009 I'd suggest retargetting to category:2009 disasters, and similarly for any other single year, but we don't have any content about disasters (or afaict any subset of type of disasters) covering periods other than calendar years or centuries. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The disconnect between what the redirect says and what the target is make this unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no such list. The caps on all words is weird too, implying a book title or something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Important battles in medieval Indian History → List of Indian battles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "Important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong (if not speedy) keep per ((R from move)) - there was content at this title from 2012 until you unilaterally moved and then merged it today (worth noting it was kept at AfD in 2012. There will are lots of incoming internal links and will be plenty of incoming external ones too. Per WP:RNEUTRAL the word "important" is not a problem in the title of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: Yeah, I suppose I'll withdraw this one until at least there is clearer proof of lack of page views. Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment from nominator: (I'm posting this after I withdrew the nomination, but I'm posting this here in case it needs to be referenced.) The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• N1 Bootis → Nu1 Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. N1 is not an abbreviation for Nu1. In the context of Bayer designations for stars, latin letters refer to completely different stars, so this redirect is confusing and misleading. Given that there is no actual N1 Bootis, there is no more appropriate target. Lithopsian (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Inappropriate redirect for a non-existent Bayer designation. Praemonitus (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the item above. These should have been a single nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 14:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  N.b., "the item" referred to in this comment is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11#N1 Booetis, which is no longer above thanks to the relisting. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't imagine why a bot was instructed to create redirects like this, especially since it doesn't seem to have done so for similar titles, e.g. there's no "Nu1" redirect to N1 road (Ghana). Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Death of Diana → Death of Diana, Princess of Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fairly ambiguous. Sure, the late Princess of Wales remains mononymously known in Britain, but I am sceptical whether that applies worldwide. --Nevé–selbert 16:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is easily the primary topic, especially since she's known mononymously. Are there any other people named Diana whose death is notable? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found Murder of Diana Miller. If we decide to keep this redirect, there ought be a hatnote pointing to that article.--Nevé–selbert 17:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I'd support a hatnote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. Unquestionably the primary topic, but a hatnote is unproblematic if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unless there's someone else it might refer to. If there isn't, this redirect is appropriate. If there is, it should be a DAB page. (That said, I can't think of any other event to which the expression "Death of Diana" might apply.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime → Samsung Galaxy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An IP is trying to delete this one but it's not eligible for speedy but the result is redirect to Samsung Galaxy not deleted but it's protected by AustralianRupert lets take the RfD instead. Atorres50 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a reason to delete a redirect, why should it be deleted? Also an AFD for this page resulted in the redirect. - GB fan 20:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Samsung Galaxy J, adding a sentence there about it (when it was released and what android version it comes with would be sufficient imo). Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment articles are a mess right now as J1 redirects to J, and only the general Galaxy page has all the J models. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Samsung Galaxy J is for one smartphone, not the series as Samsung Galaxy#Samsung Galaxy J implies. Since that's the case, it wouldn't make sense to retarget to Samsung Galaxy J unless the article is reconfigured to be a series article. One thing to note (NPI) is that there's no discussion of what the "Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime" actually is. I'm sure someone searching this already knows that it's a Samsung Galaxy, so they aren't really helped by the current target as they'd most likely want to know specific information about the J1 mini Prime. That leaves deletion, which makes the most sense to me and what I would prefer unless and until specific information about this device can be described somewhere. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect created. Dwanyewest for future reference you don't need to get permission to create redirects like this - you can be WP:BOLD and create them yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lina Lansberg → Lina Länsberg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The name Lina Lansberg should be redirected to Lina Länsberg as it is about the same person Dwanyewest (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Gold#Cultural history. --BDD (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Gold trade → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Gold trading → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There's no mention of the historic gold trade in "Gold as an investment". Most of the incoming links from gold trade are from articles about history. Prisencolin (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As noted, this redirect is serious recentism. However, I will preemptively support redirecting to any page that covers the use of gold as a direct trade good, money, and a modern investment, all in more detail than the article gold. 64.105.98.115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Gold trading to Commodity market or possibly Commodity market#History as this talks about the trading of gold. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak retarget Gold trade to Gold#Cultural history which touches on this (that section does need improvement and/or a tag of some sort. It starts out well but then gets very random factoidish). An article similar to that on the Spice trade would be ideal but I can't find one that exists. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gold#Cultural history, which is the closest we have to a proper article on the gold trade. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Patar knight. — Train2104 (talk • contribs)
• I'm not sure about the other redirect, but I agree that 'Gold trade' should go to 'Gold#Cultural history' since the socio-economic history of dealing in gold is a complex one, receiving some helpful detail over at that page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Apologies, I accidentally used the canned "keep" text when I edited the redirect, but I'm calling this no consensus. Same result, but not worth a dummy edit IMO. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• President-incumbent of the United States → President of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a likely search term, if this should point anywhere, it should go to incumbent. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - wholly implausable search term.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wholly implausible search term~ Flat Out (talk)
• Keep. This actually is a plausible search term (though possibly erroneous in its spelling or structure), and also, it currently targets the same page as Current President of the United States. Since consensus has resulted in Current President of the United States targeting President of the United States and not Donald Trump (or rather Barack Obama at the time: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 27#Current President of the United States), there is no possibility of the nominated redirect having WP:COSTLY maintenance issues whenever the United States' president changes. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Entirely logical way of distinguishing the incumbent president from the president-elect or similar, and per Steel1943. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'm not sure where the spelling problem is, but there are mentions in news articles of president incumbents, sometimes without the hyphen. There are also articles pertaining to President-incumbent for the United States. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tau Booetis Ab → Tau Boötis b  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As per yesterday's list, this is another I found today. A bot-created redirect incorrectly treating a Greek diaresis as a German umlaut. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete like all the others. English "ö" and German "ö" are different characters which have different meanings. Narky Blert (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, G7, by GB fan. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Morpheus (disambigaution) → Morpheus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelled qualifier, delete. If used, User:DPL bot would report an error. NB the correct page Morpheus (disambiguation) exists Narky Blert (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 🥅 → Goal (sport)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While awkward, this is technically exactly right. Someone types in the code for a goal, and then they get the Wikipedia page for a goal. We should just leave this be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is "U+1F945 GOAL NET", Goal (sport) is the page where we have information about goal nets. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by definition of the emoticon (per Thryduulf) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 🤣 → LOL  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is U+1F923 "ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING". Rolling on the floor laughing, ROFL and ROTFL all redirect too LOL so this should too. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Mark as a ((R double redirect avoided)) of Rolling on the floor laughing. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by definition of emoticon and avoid double redirect per previos comment Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 🥂 → Toast (honor)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is U+1F942 "CLINKING GLASSES", which clearly refers to toast (honour), thus getting people to the relevant information for their search. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The meaning of this emoji is quite clear and fits pretty much exactly with the topic of toast (honour). Deryck C. 19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: agree with previous comments Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. I'll add a hatnote at the target page to to Thryduulf's suggested target, though. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT → Wikipedia:Preemptive salting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused shortcut to a dead-on-arrival policy proposed a few days ago. It's usually better to propose something first and then add all the extras once it's been approved. As there is no such thing as preemptive salting, never has been, and it is explicitly disallowed by policy, this shortcut should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Vandalism, the target of Wikipedia:PREEMPTIVE. Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit to that, this is entirely unused and basically unknown, and that target section already has two shortcuts and does not mention create protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the section in its present form doesn't mention creation protection, but it does mention page protection in a general sense. Since creation protection is a form of page protection, targeting this redirect to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Vandalism is akin to targeting a WP:PRECISE title to a more general/ambiguous subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection which includes a short paragraph on pre-emptive restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Almost all other failed proposals have redirects to them, such as Wikipedia:Attack sites, and they were kept. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 09:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or retarget per Thryduulf. The general consensus on Wikipedia is that we don't pre-emptively salt a title that has never seen a page. Having an all-caps shortcut gives the proposal undue impression of legitimacy. But please don't get to a situation where we need to salt this title... Deryck C. 11:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deryck Chan: This is why I recommend retargetting to where we discuss preemptive restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Deryck C. 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. While current consensus exempts such redirects from CNR-based deletion, consensus for this one in particular is that the speedy deletion criterion still applies. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Gorilla City (The Flash) → Gorilla City (The Flash)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a case of WP:CNR. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (owner) per R2. Brojam (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brojam: WP:R2 doesn't apply here, as its only for redirects from mainspace. This redirect is from draftspace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then per Kailash29792. Brojam (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I mean, now that the draft has been moved to the main namespace, why still have the draft redirect? Besides, there aren't many pages linking to it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RDRAFT. @Kailash29792 and Brojam: The consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects was that redirects produced by a page move from the draft namespace to the main namespace should generally not be deleted. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Godsy. It's also worth pointing out that WP:CNR deals primarily with redirects out of the main namespace and points out that not all CNRs are inherently problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly valid ((R from move)) leftover from publishing the draft. Also, consensus in the past on similar "Draft:" namespace redirects has been to keep them, considering that it gives the draft creator a paper trail to find out where their draft ended up. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm now neutral on this per the WP:G7 potential referenced below. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I was about to strike out my vote and change it to "Speedy delete per G7", but then I noticed that the redirect's creator wasn't the only editor who edited the article back when it was in the draft namespace. Ironically, the other editor (when the page was a draft) is the nominator of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the spirit of WP:G7 since those who created the redirect want it deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on G7 grounds. When the page has been moved and the old title is nominated for deletion by the author, I think it's reasonable to say that the author's the only one who created substantial content — everyone else's contributions were made to the page that's now at Gorilla City (The Flash), and the only one who chose to do anything with making Draft:Gorilla City (The Flash) a bluelink is the one who now wants it to be deleted. This obviously wouldn't be applicable in all mainspace-to-mainspace pagemoves (we shouldn't trash a good redirect just because the creator doesn't like it), but this is draftspace, where basically nobody's going to need it if the creator doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stretch Armstrong (2014 film) → Breck Eisner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as a failed crystal. The plans to make this film were abandoned. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Manhunt (2014 film) → Breck Eisner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Manhunt (2015 film) → Breck Eisner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not seeing a 2014 or 2015 film by this name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete failed crystal with no historical value. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to The Beast#Films. Steel1943's concern is noted, though—if there isn't a merge, we may need to revisit this if there's a notable film named simply Beast. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Beast (film) → Beast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This dab page doesn't mention any films named "Beast". -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget over to The_Beast#Films since there are multiple productions known as "The Beast" that someone can very plausibly mistake as titled just "Beast". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets. I'm tempted to add a see-also to this page from the Beast#Film and television section (and vice versa) given it's plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CWM/Thryduulf (and those hatnotes are a great idea) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets. I'm okay with a "see also" hatnote to Beast#Film and television and vice versa per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom unless Beast and The Beast are merged. The fact that we currently have two separate disambiguation pages for a WP:THE differentiation is enough to consider retargeting to The Beast misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• IDKWTI → Eric Gordon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing on the page resembling a reason for this, as far as I can tell. It's slang for "I don't know [who/what/where] [that/this] is". Possible BLP, even? Eh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The explanation for this, given at [1] is "If you're not familiar with "IDKWTI", it refers to a certain shooting guard from Indiana who was verballed to Illinois for 10 months before flipping to Indiana. When asked about EG flipping from Illinois to Indiana, Deron Williams, who was in the NBA by then, responded with the very dead-to-me "Eric Gordon? I Don't Know Who That Is." As such, IDKWTI refers to Gordon.". This nickname was apparently formerly mentioned in the infobox but a talk page discussion agreed it should be removed. If it was to be mentioned anywhere, it would e in the "Recruitment" or "Aftermath" sections, but including that one quote would seem a bit undue given the coverage already there (but note I know essentially nothing about basketball). If you are using this nickname then you already know who it refers to, but if you see someone else using it Wikipedia's article will not make you any the wiser, so I'm leaning delete here. I'll ping the college basketball project about this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't think of a single reason this should exist. It's a derogatory nickname used by fans of a single team. João Do Rio (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of the usage in notable sports articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Chinese_grammar#Conjunctions. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 连词 → Conjunction (grammar)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target doesn't cover conjunctions in Chinese, so this may be seen as misleading. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although if someone writes an article about Chinese-language conjunctions, the redirect should be restored. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Chinese_grammar#Conjunctions would be such an article section but it would be a ((R without mention)) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Chinese grammar#Conjunctions. I've mentioned the Chinese term in the section. It confuses me that English-native grammarians describe Chinese grammar in a different way from Chinese-native grammarians. Deryck C. 11:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deryck. I agree with the retarget. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. This is just like any other situation where we have a redirect from a foreign-language term to an article that covers a topic related to the foreign language. Congrats to AngusWOOF for finding an article that already covered the topic. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus is that this redirect has too much of a disambiguator to be useful. Deryck C. 15:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Theodora FitzGibbon (Cookery writer, model and actress) → Theodora FitzGibbon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an unnecessary disambiguator which is too unwieldy to be useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree. This doesn't appear helpful at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep entirely harmless ((R from move)) and ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)). Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't see a disambiguatior that WP:PRECISE being helpful as a search term, solely due to how unwieldy it looks. Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was going to advocate keeping because deleting R from Move pages is normally not a good idea, but (1) the page was at this title for 2½ weeks, so it likely didn't get a lot of links during that time, and (2) the very awkward name makes it highly unlikely that anyone would have linked to the redirect after the article got moved. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a useful dab considering she's the only notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. In my capacity as a normal editor, however, I'd like to opine that just because we can have redirects like this doesn't mean we should. As soon as she becomes involved with another notable project, this becomes WP:XY and we need to delete or overwrite. In the meantime, this is an improvement over search results—but not by much. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Camila Mendes → Riverdale (2017 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Actor articles should not redirect to a singular piece of their work, as it incorrectly represents them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The target article Riverdale (2017 TV series) mentions the actress. She is playing Veronica Lodge in the series and she has notability and can be developed into an article. She has also been covered in non-English websites as pt:Jovem Nerd 1 and 2. And she has verified twitter account.Marvellous Spider-Man 02:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Quoting the policy WP:RFD#KEEP, number 7.

The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Expanding per my talk page. Redirects of actors to articles of works of media are misleading, given that an actor/actress typically has starred in multiple works of media, and redirecting them to a specific one is misleading and gives undue weight to that particular work. This is why I request deletions for them. If it's going to be made into an article, then do just that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a few AFDs about persons which pass borderline notability and the consensus is to redirect now, as there is a chance that the article will be full notable in short time. This actress is popular for playing VERONICA in the Archie TV series, so the redirect is to the TV series. As I said in your talk page other editors creates many such redirects every week where they redirects the actor to the film. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But only in this case since Mendes has not starred in any other works of media, apart from Riverdale, and will most likely take a while to get enough coverage to create an article. For actors with multiple works, it is misleading and should not be used. Brojam (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag with possibilities for WP:ENT once she gets another major role. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.